Comments about ‘In our opinion: Extend unemployment benefits’

"...and a recognition that administration policies have failed." Being
a socialist myself I do no intend to carry water for the administration, but
your remark carries a bit of partisanship. The administration took the
necessary monetarist steps to save the banking system in 2009. This it had to
do, because to rescue capitalism you have to rescue the top first (sad but
that's the system). Obama would have liked to do more New Deal type
stimulus, more public works projects - many of which are desperately needed -
but could never have gotten them through the congress. Obama did his job and
rescued American capitalism. I should think you guys would be a bit more
grateful.

Yes, Yes, Yes, we obviously don't actually want people to have no money.
The problem is that for more than a few, unemployment and its attendent benefits
is one of the biggest growth industries in the U.S. today. Unemployment and
food stamps go hand in hand. Do Obama and the Democrats really believe than if
their stewardship since 2007 were evaluated, that the huge increase of citizens
"Dependent" upon the government to live is a positive success story?
Because, I've always agreed with the more conservative view that the
success of government is not in how many get government assistance, but in how
many Do Not need government assistance.

Perfectly articulated DN. Not only is the administration hindering growth,
they're doing it knowing it's creating an entitlement society. The
blueprint for rapid and steady job growth has already been written and they
don't seem the least bit interested in following it. It's astonishing
when you really think about what they've done and even more so when you
think the American people didn't see it coming.

Extend the unemployment "benefits" even further? This would only
make those receiving payments even more dependent.Two things would really
help:1- Require some measure of public work before receiving publicly
financed unemployment (with time off for seeking a employment).2- Ease
payees out of the program instead of cutting off all the benefit at once. Such
as remove 1/3 of the original amount each month until it is gone.

I agree that the benefits should be extended but we need a more predictable
(less political) method of determining and extending benefits. There should be
a longer federal time period and it should increase automatically based on
certain employment rate benchmarks. The reality is there are folks who hit
long-term unemployment in better times when there is no action by Congress.

That said, blaming the long-term unemployment rate on this
administration is laughable. If they do something it won't help, if they
do, it hurts. Please. We need to accept three facts.

First, we are
emerging from the deepest recession any can recall other than the very old who
can actually remember the Great Depression and digging out will not be quick
(expecting it to be so is foolish).

Second, though imperfect, both
this and the Bush Administration responded about as well as could be expected.
Could things have been done better in hindsight? When is that not true?

Third, in our system government can influence the economy - it cannot
and does not control it. Expecting it to be able to make sharp, immediate
differences reveals a lack of understanding.

Uh, you may have missed the memo, but when Obama took
office he and the Democrats plowed about 800 billion into "shovel ready
jobs" to do just as you claim the Republicans did not want to do. What went
wrong?

To Marxist: "Obama did his job and rescued American capitalism." The
facts are obvious that this administration has done everything it can possibly
do through taxation, illegal regulations from the EPA and other government
agencies who make up their own laws and Presidential mandates; to destroy
Capitalism or Free Enterprise. It would be wise to look at Obama's record
and see exactly what he has done.....which is absolutely nothing to help this
economy recover! He has placed more people on welfare than any other President
in history and wants to keep them there with an additional "free lunch,"
without requiring any labor for it. And, the millions who have given up on
finding employment, because of His anti-capitalism policies, are now dependent
on the taxpayer handout and are willing to live on it. The economy is not
recovering; placing the blame squarely on Obama and his administration's
anti-growth, redistribution of wealth policies!

Yes, barack has been a failure and his policies have come painfully short of
what he told us, like when he said he's keep unemployment below 8% if
allowed his first spendathon of 800 billion. Or the time he told us he'd
be a one term president if he didn't cut the deficit in half, only to see
him increase it.

But those aside, its not baracks responsibility to
make sure everyone has a job. Its my responsibility to make sure I have a job.
I don't want barack taking money from others who have earned it, to give it
to me if I'm not earning it. That's not right

RE: JDMAC "1- Require some measure of public work before receiving
publicly financed unemployment (with time off for seeking a employment)."
This is what Obama would have preferred - public works projects.

"something lawmakers should agree to as an act of compassion and a
recognition that administration policies have failed."

DMN, you
just can't support anything, no matter how "compassionate" without
taking a nasty ill advised swipe at the Obama Administration. There would not
be so many out of work for so long if your number two boss, the Republican
Party, had supported some kind of a jobs bill to help re-build infrastructure
and put a lot of people back to work.

The government should hire every available, employable, unemployed worker in
America. Pay them at a wage according to the needs of providing life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness for themselves as an individual or as a family.

The entire cost of such a government program to be paid by a tax
upon all American business operations and even foreign business operations in
the USA. If business operators would hire all the workers, the tax would be
zero.

Pro:

Eliminate poverty. Eliminate depressions,
booms, and make the economy stable.

Con:

None.

Business is the engine that pumps the economic blood (money) that supports our
entire society. Like any other engine it must be controlled by the operator.
The owner/operator of the business engine is the society where it performs.

We have a stalled economy. The problem is not supply but rather a lack of
demand. Demand comes from spending. Spending comes, usually, from actually
having money to spend. Cutting out a chunk of funds from the poor or middle
class (in this case the unemployed) reduces purchasing power and further
decreases demand. Jobs are only created if there's enough demand to make
the added job worthwhile. As a result it's estimated that we'll take a
.2% of GDP hit to the economy by not extending these unemployment benefits, and
lose out on 100k jobs. Might not be much but well... making things worse is
hardly a good idea right now.

You don't even necessarily have
to extend it to 73 weeks anymore, you could just scale it back to 50 weeks
rather than 27.